Reading VAERS is not inherently wrong or bad. However, before reading VAERS, you should understand what it is and what you will find there.

VAERS is the place where doctors, patients, and really anyone else can report what they suspect to be side effect of a vaccination. The CDC and the
FDA co-sponsor this data base, and they use it to monitor possible vaccine side effects. When certain patterns or clusters of similar reports appear,
public health officials investigate these events and make appropriate recommendations. For example, in 1999, VAERS caught a higher than expected
incidence of intussusception—a bowel disorder—following adminstration of RotaShield, a rotovirus vaccine. Epidemiological studies confirmed the
heightened risk of this side effect, and the vaccine was pulled from the market.

In this sense, VAERS is invaluable. It gives public health officials the information they need in order to keep our immunization program as safe as
possible. As a parent, I take comfort in the fact that VAERS exists and that people who know how to analyze the data are on top of it.

However, VAERS is a passive reporting system. This means that anyone can report anything to it. There is no go-between. It’s almost
like an online forum or message board; anyone can post and no one vets the claims. As such, a report in VAERS does not prove that any adverse event
was actually caused by vaccines. In fact, it doesn't even prove that any reported adverse event actually existed. One of the more well-known
examples of how any report makes it into VAERS was Dr. James Laidler’s report that the influenza vaccine turned him into the Incredible
Hulk. He inspired Kevin Leitch from Left Brain Right Brain to report a similar Wonder Woman adverse event.

Literally, one of the cases that NVIC is citing is the Incredible Hulk.

You are still posting an anti-vaccination website. I can only conclude that you are incapable of reading.

Still no answers to my questions regarding your claims...

Really........The vaccine adverse events reporting database is a anti-vaccination website......Remember that is how they got the data.......YA nice
try.

Oh wait I know......Spin it and make it personal........

You don't seem to be aware that just because something has been reported does not mean it was proven to be true.

The site you are using seems to be connected to Mercola and that is not a good sign. Some of the numbers they are using seem to be contrived from
VAERS.

"When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.
Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on
any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation
that a vaccine caused the event."

How many times must it be pointed out to you that VAERS is not a credible source?

Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality,
absence of a control group that is not vaccinated, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated. Indeed, an autism activist named Jim
Laidler once reported to VAERS that a vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database, but the
dubious nature thereof prompted a VAERS representative to contact Mr. Laidler, who then gave his consent to delete the report.[4]

During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public
health.

The who's only agenda is to prevent illness and death.......I disagree and can prove what I am saying. During the Ebola scare did they try the new
vaccine over in Africa they waited until it reached a 1st world country.

But don't you see then how misleading NVIC is for not providing the context for its data? For a layperson reading NVIC, the 6,000+ statistic is
written like it is confirmation, not speculation. Same with the 300+ deaths.

And as I clarified data can be corrupted for many reasons including conflict of interests. But I also added death reports are serious things and not
just made up. A doctor needs to certify death.......See the angle.

But don't you see then how misleading NVIC is for not providing the context for its data? For a layperson reading NVIC, the 6,000+ statistic is
written like it is confirmation, not speculation. Same with the 300+ deaths.

Yes I do......But as I just stated in the US a doctor needs to certify death so the numbers of deaths are probably pretty accurate. As for the rest
of the data.......Ya you are correct.

Hospitals and doctors use this sight to report vaccination allergic reactions.........In the broader sense ya you can never trust data 100% because of
many reason including conflict of interests.

I will add death reports are serious things and are not just made up.

Try reading this again and let me know if you have any questions.

"When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.
Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on
any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation
that a vaccine caused the event."

Considering you are the one who admits that you can never trust data 100% I don't understand why you seem to trust a site connected to Mercola which
sells small bottles of water for exorbitant prices with claims that a few drops of that water can cure disease.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. Clarification, please.

OK in the US a doctor has to verify and report deaths......It is serious business for good reason. This is why the deaths listed in the database are
more than likely correct or close. The other non death related information is questionable at best......But the death reports have to be certified by
a doctor.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.